This is a forum based out of Pensacola Florida.

You are not connected. Please login or register

On the NRA March -- "We don't let children determine policy!" Laura Ingraham

Go to page : Previous  1, 2

Go down  Message [Page 2 of 2]


There will be no stopping these young Americans!

I'll give them my time and my $!

panhandler wrote:There will be no stopping these young Americans!  

I'll give them my time and my $!

Laughing Laughing Laughing

View user profile

A mental health evaluation inclusive of interviews with friends, family, neighbors, boss, co-workers, etc and a review of one's entire social media history to own a gun.   Maybe one's credit score, online purchases, internet browsing history, work history, IRS history, and pharmaceutical history too?  It can be a Brave New World, folks if you'll only vote for it ... or vote for people who will appoint judges to usher it in.

That's what some people mean when they talk about enhancing "background checks" to own a gun. They want to push it off on the mental health field (as though they have some sort of crystal ball?)    They'd probably also go for assigning scores to people just like the Chinese are doing in that article you linked. I can't help but wonder how many from the lower socioeconomic demographic would be excluded from owning a firearm with all the restrictions some would like to put on that.  Some would structure things as such that only the wealthy and/or well-connected would be able to own a firearm.  I have little doubt most of the patriots of the American Revolution would fail to pass such a background check as advocated by the hard anti-gunners.   (Fortunately the hard anti-gunners are a minority within the Democrat Party.)

Leftists scream about the regulatory hoops some red States want to put in place for a woman to have an abortion (which I disagree with as well, btw)  .... but have no problem requiring all kinds of governmental hoops to jump through to exercise one's 2nd Amendment protected rights. And in the process never recognizing their own authoritarian leanings.

So long as we're going around infringing on Constitutionally protected rights ... why stop with the 2nd Amendment?    Let's infringe upon the 1st, 4th, 10th ... all of 'em.  Party on, Garth!   Maybe require people to have a mental health evaluation and pass some kind of test before they are allowed to blather here on the interwebs.  Heck, let's just interpret the Constitution variously according to what the talking heads on teevee on any given day tell us we should worry about or do.

If ya don't like the 2nd Amendment ... change it (if you think you can), I say ....  instead of trying to do legislative end-runs around the Constitution.

View user profile

Please explain how "a well regulated militia" translates into allowing private owners absolute right to the weapon of their choice.

View user profile
Floridatexan wrote:
Please explain how "a well regulated militia" translates into allowing private owners absolute right to the weapon of their choice.

The hard core pro-gunners would point you to 10 USC 246.  

And also to:

Tenche Coxe: “Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American… The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.” – Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.

Tench Coxe: “Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American… [T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.”, Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.

Tench Coxe: “As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.” in “Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution,” under the pseudonym “A Pennsylvanian” in the Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789.

Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts: “Whenever governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins.” (spoken during floor debate over the Second Amendment, I Annals of Congress at 750, August 17, 1789.)

Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts: “What, sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty.” Rep. of Massachusetts, I Annals of Congress at 750 (August 17, 1789).

Alexander Hamilton: “…that standing army can never be formidable (threatening) to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in the use of arms.” (Federalist Paper #29)

Alexander Hamilton: “Little more can be aimed at with respect to the people at large than to have them properly armed and equipped.” (Id) {responding to the claim that the militia itself could threaten liberty}” There is something so far-fetched, and so extravagant in the idea of danger of liberty from the militia that one is at a loss whether to treat it with gravity or raillery (mockery). (Id)

Alexander Hamilton: “The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious, if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss. It would form an annual deduction from the productive labor of the country, to an amount which, calculating upon the present numbers of the people, would not fall far short of the whole expense of the civil establishments of all the States. To attempt a thing which would abridge the mass of labor and industry to so considerable an extent, would be unwise: and the experiment, if made, could not succeed, because it would not long be endured. Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped” – Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No.2

Patrick Henry: “The people have a right to keep and bear arms.” (Elliott, Debates at 185)

Patrick Henry: “Are we at last brought to such a humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our own defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in our possession and under our own direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?, 3 Elliot Debates 168-169.

Patrick Henry: “The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun.” 3 Elliot, Debates at 386.

Thomas Jefferson: “And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms… The tree of Liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants.”, letter to William S. Smith, 1787, in S. Padover (Ed.), Jefferson, On Democracy (1939), p. 20.

Thomas Jefferson In his Commonplace Book, Jefferson quotes Cesare Beccaria from his seminal work, On Crimes and Punishment: “Laws that forbid the carrying of arms… disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes… Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.”

Thomas Jefferson: “A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be the constant companion of your walks.” Encyclopedia of T. Jefferson, 318 (Foley, Ed., 1967).

Thomas Jefferson: “No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.”, Proposal for a Virginia Constitution, 1 T. Jefferson Papers, 334 (C.J. Boyd, Ed. 1950)

Richard Henry Lee: “To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them…” (LIGHT HORSE HARRY) LEE, writing in Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republic (1787-1788)

Richard Henry Lee: “A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves…and include all men capable of bearing arms.” (Additional letters from the Federal Farmer, at 169, 1788)

President James Madison: “…to support the Constitution, which is the cement of the Union, as well in its limitations as in its authorities; to respect the rights and authorities reserved to the States and to the people as equally incorporated with and essential to the success of the general system;… to keep within the requisite limits a standing military force, always remembering that an armed and trained militia is the firmest bulwark of republics – that without standing armies their liberty can never be in danger, nor with large ones safe;…” – President James Madison, First Inaugural address, Saturday, March 4, 1809.

James Madison: “A WELL REGULATED militia, composed of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country.” (1st Annals of Congress, at 434, June 8th 1789, emphasis added.

James Madison: “As the greatest danger to liberty is from large standing armies, it is best to prevent them by an effectual provision for a good militia.” (notes of debates in the 1787 Federal Convention)

George Mason: “I ask you sir, who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people.” (Elliott, Debates, 425-426)

Thomas Paine: “The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand, arms like laws discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside… Horrid mischief would ensue were one half the world deprived of the use of them…” I Writings of Thomas Paine at 56 (1894)

William Rawle: “In the second article, it is declared, that a well regulated militia is necessary to a free state; a proposition from which few will dissent. Although in actual war, in the services of regular troops are confessedly more valuable; yet while peace prevails, and in the commencement of a war before a regular force can be raised, the militia form the palladium of the country. They are ready to repel invasion, to suppress insurrection, and preserve the good order and peace of government. That they should be well regulated, is judiciously added. A disorderly militia is disgraceful to itself, and dangerous not to the enemy, but to its own country. The duty of the state government is, to adopt such regulation as will tend to make good soldiers with the least interruptions of the ordinary and useful occupations of civil life. In this all the Union has a strong and visible interest.” – William Rawle, “A View of the Constitution of the United States of America” (1829)

Joseph Story: “The militia is the natural defense of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers. It is against sound policy for a free people to keep up large military establishments and standing armies in time of peace, both from the enormous expenses, with which they are attended, and the facile means, which they afford to ambitious and unprincipled rulers, to subvert the government, or trample upon the rights of the people.” – Joseph Story. Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States. 3 vols. Boston, 1833.

Joseph Story (Supreme Court Justice): “The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered as the palladium of the liberties of a republic…”

Sir George Tucker: “The right of self-defense is the first law of nature; in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest possible limits…and [when] the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction.” – Sir George Tucker, Judge of the Virginia Supreme Court and U.S. District Court of Virginia in I Blackstone COMMENTARIES Sir George Tucker Ed., 1803, pg. 300 (App.)

George Washington: “A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government.”

Not interested in arguing any of that .... just seems from your question you are ignorant of what the hard core pro-gunners think.   And I assure you they do  "think" .... just not the same way you do.

View user profile

The perennial gun-control debate in America did not begin here. The same arguments for and against were made in the 1920s in the chaos of Germany’s Weimar Republic, which opted for gun registration. Law-abiding persons complied with the law, but the Communists and Nazis committing acts of political violence did not.

In 1931, Weimar authorities discovered plans for a Nazi takeover in which Jews would be denied food and persons refusing to surrender their guns within 24 hours would be executed. They were written by Werner Best, a future Gestapo official. In reaction to such threats, the government authorized the registration of all firearms and the confiscation thereof, if required for “public safety.” The interior minister warned that the records must not fall into the hands of any extremist group.#ad#

In 1933, the ultimate extremist group, led by Adolf Hitler, seized power and used the records to identify, disarm, and attack political opponents and Jews. Constitutional rights were suspended, and mass searches for and seizures of guns and dissident publications ensued. Police revoked gun licenses of Social Democrats and others who were not “politically reliable.”

During the five years of repression that followed, society was “cleansed” by the National Socialist regime. Undesirables were placed in camps where labor made them “free,” and normal rights of citizenship were taken from Jews. The Gestapo banned independent gun clubs and arrested their leaders. Gestapo counsel Werner Best issued a directive to the police forbidding issuance of firearm permits to Jews.

In 1938, Hitler signed a new Gun Control Act. Now that many “enemies of the state” had been removed from society, some restrictions could be slightly liberalized, especially for Nazi Party members. But Jews were prohibited from working in the firearms industry, and .22 caliber hollow-point ammunition was banned.

The time had come to launch a decisive blow to the Jewish community, to render it defenseless so that its “ill-gotten” property could be redistributed as an entitlement to the German “Volk.” The German Jews were ordered to surrender all their weapons, and the police had the records on all who had registered them. Even those who gave up their weapons voluntarily were turned over to the Gestapo.

This took place in the weeks before what became known as the Night of the Broken Glass, or Kristallnacht, occurred in November 1938. That the Jews were disarmed before it, minimizing any risk of resistance, is the strongest evidence that the pogrom was planned in advance. An incident was needed to justify unleashing the attack.

That incident would be the shooting of a German diplomat in Paris by a teenage Polish Jew. Hitler directed propaganda minister Josef Goebbels to orchestrate the Night of the Broken Glass. This massive operation, allegedly conducted as a search for weapons, entailed the ransacking of homes and businesses, and the arson of synagogues.

SS chief Heinrich Himmler decreed that 20 years be served in a concentration camp by any Jew possessing a firearm. Rusty revolvers and bayonets from the Great War were confiscated from Jewish veterans who had served with distinction. Twenty thousand Jewish men were thrown into concentration camps, and had to pay ransoms to get released.

The U.S. media covered the above events. And when France fell to Nazi invasion in 1940, the New York Times reported that the French were deprived of rights such as free speech and firearm possession just as the Germans had been. Frenchmen who failed to surrender their firearms within 24 hours were subject to the death penalty.

No wonder that in 1941, just days before the Pearl Harbor attack, Congress reaffirmed Second Amendment rights and prohibited gun registration. In 1968, bills to register guns were debated, with opponents recalling the Nazi experience and supporters denying that the Nazis ever used registration records to confiscate guns. The bills were defeated, as every such proposal has been ever since, including recent “universal background check” bills.

As in Weimar Germany, some well-meaning people today advocate severe restrictions, including bans and registration, on gun ownership by law-abiding persons. Such proponents are in no sense “Nazis,” any more than were the Weimar officials who promoted similar restrictions. And it would be a travesty to compare today’s situation to the horrors of Nazi Germany.

Still, as history teaches, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

View user profile
All this "militia" shit, no matter how it's interpreted, is a holdover from the days when pretty much all anyone had -- government or otherwise -- was swords and muskets.

Comparisons of things like, oh, say the Weimar Republic, are distracting games for an unthinking imbecile to play.

I keep having to say this, because people are so wrought-up in Red Dawn fantasies about bein' a badass that they can't accept reality, which is this -- if your guns were really a threat to a tyrannical government, Republicans would be the FIRST ones wanting to take 'em away from you.   They allow you these "I'm-'on take on the gub'ment 'n' water the tree of Liberty with my fancy rock-throwin' contraption I bought at the Army/Navy store 'cuz I'm a tough guy like Chuck Norris in that-there Invasion USA movie I seen on TBS!" because they can afford to and it keeps you pacified. But on a real level? Ha ha ha!

Horrrrssssseshiiiiiiit you stupid, stupid fuckwit.

The government has all kids of nifty-neato stuff that makes even a bump-stocked AR-15 look like a flyswatter.  You and your fatass I.Q.-32 buddies with your four-wheelers and all yer shit wouldn't even get to meet the men who killed you.   They'd shoot a Hellfire on your position from a drone and wipe you all out before you could hike up your fat-boy pants and try to figure out what to aim at.   They'd roll in some tanks and flatten you, they'd come in with superior numbers and sonic cannons and gas and napalm and choppers full of miniguns and whatever-the-hell-else they wanted to play with and all your "militia" cosplay bullshit would take them about five minutes.

Whenever you see somebody with a Gadsden flag on their truck, you go over to that guy and try to sell him some land in the middle of the Sound Side, because he'll probably be fuck-all stupid enough to buy it.  "Don't Tread On Me" is pig-Latin for "Hey, Look, A Retard."  

Whether they take your guns (which nobody's actually trying to do) or let you have full-auto belt-fed whatever, your pudgy pimpled ass ain't duking it out with the government.   Just let that fantasy go.  Enjoy your movies and your prepper-fiction and all,  they're fun fantasies, but so is Spider-Man and that ain't gonna happen, either.  There's no more need for a "well-regulated militia" as far as private citizens go, because we've moved so far past that it's silly already.   We have the Army/Navy/Air Force/Marines, and they have waaaaaaay better weapons than you ever will.  And so will anyone who comes invading these shores.   You ain't gonna be defending shit, homeboy, you aren't gonna be anybody's hero.  You will, at best, be an itch on Uncle Sam's behind that will take him a few minutes to scratch.  That's all.  

Ask that dumb Nazi dipshit Randy Weaver how that particular trip to the Neighborhood of Make-Believe ends.  It ends with listening to the wind whistling through your wife's head.  Ask David Koresh, if you've got an Ouija board.   And all those things were done with restraint.  They let them play around a while, hoping things could end peacefully only for P.R. purposes... which, in the end, they didn't really care all that much about.  If you try some serious sedition, they'll bring in the big stuff and lay a crater where you were.

So spare me the childish "we're defenders of liberty" shit.  Not since the days of muskets has that been even remotely true.  

I'm for reasonable ownership of such guns as are useful for hunting, target-shooting, and defending your home, but all this butt-trumpeting about "holding a tyrannical government at bay" and militias just makes me laugh.  Would that it were possible, but, I'm sorry, if the government wants you gone, you'll be gone, and I don't care what kind of ordnance they've let you have.  Our government takes on other governments.   You and Cleetus and Caleb and Jeremiah and all your cool Soldier of Fortune-y shit ain't anywhere close to even the worst-regulated military of the smallest country, so gimme a break.

View user profile

Sponsored content

Back to top  Message [Page 2 of 2]

Go to page : Previous  1, 2

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum